Gift Idea: "Everything Bad Is Good For You"

[Helm]

t's not the content that's making us intelligent.

It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent.

It's difficult to read this thread fully, but is anyone disagreeing with this? I find it a very reasonable assumption. Faster minds for faster worlds. Doesn't mean better worlds, doesn't mean better (content-wise) minds. Just faster.

[evenwolf]

Helm, I don't even know where that quote came from becuase of the massive, ridiculous amount of referencing in this thread.


I do know that some similar quotes were made and a few individuals piped in with rhetoric such as "people do not indeed have faster minds, or if they did they were no better, because now their attention spans are so low etc."

Its such a weird vibe I get from people reacting to this book.   I am glad I brought up my enthusiasm for the concept on an internet forum rather than in a party or a classroom.  I wouldn't have been prepared for such immediate presumptions and criticisms.

[DGMacphee]

It's interesting you mention how people react to the book. For me, I went from thinking all TV is shithouse to reading the book and deciding, "Wait, it's not as bad as people think."

[evenwolf]

No, no- let me clarify.

I think the same as you.Ã,  Ã, I meant People reacting to the nature of the book.


They don't have to read it to know exactly what it says!

[EagerMind]

you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.

I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.

DVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks .... there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.

I don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.

It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent .... The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.

I see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."

[DGMacphee]

I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.

That's fair enough, but I still think that the mainstream TV has improved over the last 50 years, thus improving our intelligence.

I don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.

But you have to have an understanding of plot prior to listening to commentaries or else it's harder to link everything together. The fact that you're relating the two audio streams together, using the visuals as part of that link, is what's key.

I see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."

I don't deny consumerism can go overboard sometimes, but I do think there are many examples of how such can help intelligence. Consider Pokemon. Before I thought it was an easy marketing ploy. But I've never actually played Pokemon. There are kids who know the names of every single Pokemon as well as all their strengths, weaknesses, and history. This is a pretty complex game compared to something from my childhood, like Hungry Hungry Hippos.